But among the numerous and conflicting official cover stories is, not surprisingly, a most pernicious cover story: had there been an NSA domestic spying program in place prior to 911 the attacks might have been prevented.That is, of course, an outrageous, bald-faced lie. The attacks might have been prevented anyway! But were not!
Moreover, the measures Bush has taken since then have utterly failed to address the issue of terrorism.That Bush ignored numerous warnings is heavily documented. And there is yet another new story from AlterNet:
The 9/11 Story That Got Away
By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006.
In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper. ...
Back in the year 2004, Presidential advisor Richard Clarke was revealed by CBS News to have told Bush that was no link between Iraq and the attacks of 911. Clarke's admonition had legs, even then. [See: Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes] Saddam's was, after all, a secular regime! But Al Qaeda --we were repeatedly told --consisted of raving, militant Islamic fanatics. Even then, Bush's cover story made no sense whatsoever, but even now, you will find among Bush's dwindling faithful a few die hard idiots who still spread the bunkum that Bush's attack on Iraq was but a part of the larger "war on terror".
Nonsense! Bush has never waged a "war on terrorism"! Afghanistan --where bin Laden was allowed to escape was not it! And Iraq --which even Bush concedes had nothing to do with 911 --was not it!Consider Bush's official conspiracy theory with respect to 911. It goes something like this. bin Laden sits at the head of a vast and super secret world wide conspiracy the likes of which has not been seen since Smersh. There are several things wrong with the official conspiracy theory but let's deal with the most obvious ones.
- Despite posturing by Bush and Cheney, the facts are these: Bush ignored hard evidence from top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attacks on U.S. soil. Why? If Bush really wanted Bin Laden, he blew SEVERAL opportunities. One of them in July, prior to 911. The Guardian and the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that bin Laden received dialysis treatment for a period of some 10 days at the American hospital in Dubai, and while there, he was visited by a local CIA agent. It was also about this time that U.S. State Department officials were threatening Afghanistan with carpet bombing if the Taliban didn't come to terms on the proposed Unocal pipeline across Afghanistan.
Bush had other opportunities to seize bin Laden but didn't. See: Alexander Cockburn: Bush was offered bin Laden and Blew It.
- Keep in mind, when the CIA was reported to have visited bin Laden in Dubai, 911 had not happened. But, already the Bush State Department was spoiling for a war. All it needed was a pretext that the gullible American public would buy! It got it --conveniently --on 911!
Even Bush concedes that Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 911! Then why does Bush continue to cite the war against Iraq has justification for a widespread domestic surveillance program?
Briefly, Bush lied to the nation and the world in order to begin the war on Iraq and "terrorism" had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It was about oil. There were, arguably, no "terrorists" in Iraq before the American attack and invasion and, if they are there now, it's because they are not stupid.
Bush likes to say that we fight them there rather than here. Rather, Bush took the bait. The terrorists are most surely telling their own constituencies they are killing Americans in Iraq!But how many of what Bush calls "insurgents" are terrorists? How many are simply Iraqi defending their own country against an illegal occupation by an aggressor? To that extent, they are protected by International Law. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham put it this way to Parliament during Britain's occupation of the American colonies:
If I were an American as I am an Englishman, I would never lay down my arms! Never! Never! NEVER!
Now --about the real reasons for war against Iraq. Bush made promises to Dick Cheney's Halliburton, Condo Rice's Exxon-Mobil et al. It was not promised to them that oil prices would go down upon the American seizure of control over Iraqi oil fields and production! Rather, prices would go up and with them, the profits of big oil. Now --isn't that precisely what has happened?